Let's Set the Record Straight: A defense of Pope Benedict Pt.1
First I ask all of you to forgive me! I will be breaking my rule, this article will take more than a minute to read. But I think that this issue is very important deserving it's own, undivided attention.
During the past month there has been much publicity about the recent allegations of Pope Benedict's mishandling of two separate priests, Fr. Murphy and Fr. Hullerman. Both of these priests were both accused of sex abuse while Benedict was bishop and head of the Congregation for the Defense of the faith. (CDF) Also thrown into this mix are the recent allegations of priest sex abuse cases in Ireland and other Western European countries. To the casual viewer this current onslaught of allegations can be bewildering, confusing and frustrating. Making sense of all this can seem like an gargantuan, Orwellian task. I can almost hear a collective sigh of "Oh no here we go again" But before you decide to leave the church, or reach your conclusions about how the catholic church is one giant mafia holding stock in Immobiliare. Hear me out, give me a chance to explain, to clarify, to bring you the truth that mainstream media is trying to hide. It is my hope that through my writing and research that I can help clarify and clear up misunderstandings about these recent news developments. Since the breath and scope of these allegations can be confounding. I will be writing multiple installments chronicling the different issues surrounding these allegations. This installment will chronicle the sex abuse scandal of 02', pariticularily the official policy implemented by the CDF in 1962 titled, Crimen sollictationis It is my firm belief that this recent media blitz is a deliberate attempt to smear pope Benedict, and to cast a negative light on his stellar record as cardinal and now as pope.
It is important to also note that I am in no way defending the actions of the accused. I believe firmly that those accused should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. I am only trying to record the facts as accurately as possible since unfortunately we live in a time where the media as a whole is not reliable. Remember that context is the key to unlocking the truth of these issues.
In 2002, the United States woke up to the horror of sex abuse allegations at the hands of Catholic Priests. It seemed like almost every day there was some other priest, some other bishop involved in abusing some victims or even worse covering up a for a priest. The country as a whole felt betrayed, shocked, and outraged. How can servants of Christ do such abominable things? Worse off how could the church cover up these cases, even moving the abused priests to different dioceses? In short it was a terrible time in the history of the Catholic Church in America. A period that I would argue that we as catholics still have not totally recovered from.
In 1962 the Congregation for the doctrine of faith issued a policy on how to report alleged sex abuse cases. This policy was called Crimen sollictationis Under this policy absolute secrecy was promised to the victim and priest if an allegation was brought up. The victim in this policy had up to one month to report the incident to the bishop. On the surface this seems like a perfect recipe for covering up the problem, but if one looks beyond the obvious one can see that this policy actually was designed to help the victims. Think about it for a second, remember that context is key here, imagine you have been abused and you are part of a parish, would you want your allegations to be made public? Now also imagine if you were a priest would you want your name to be dragged in the mud if the allegations were proved false? This type of dual protection is not foreign to many of our laws, for example our whistle blower laws offer similar types of protections to the victims. This type of protection often times is the incentive needed to encourage victims to speak up.
This policy also divided the jurisdictional responsibilities in the following two ways. If there was an actual sex abuse case reported than the CDF (Congregation for the doctrine of Faith) would take care of it, but for other types of criminal misbehavior the jurisdiction would fall under the presiding bishop of the diocese. Unfortunately though, many bishops did not follow this procedure choosing instead to cover up or to move the priests to a different parish. This behavior would have disastrous consequences in the following decades.
In 2001 then Cardinal Ratzinger, decided because of the gross in inadequacies of the local bishops in handling the cases that the CDC instead would take over all of the reported cases. Fr. Brundage speaks about this sudden change of procedure
During the past month there has been much publicity about the recent allegations of Pope Benedict's mishandling of two separate priests, Fr. Murphy and Fr. Hullerman. Both of these priests were both accused of sex abuse while Benedict was bishop and head of the Congregation for the Defense of the faith. (CDF) Also thrown into this mix are the recent allegations of priest sex abuse cases in Ireland and other Western European countries. To the casual viewer this current onslaught of allegations can be bewildering, confusing and frustrating. Making sense of all this can seem like an gargantuan, Orwellian task. I can almost hear a collective sigh of "Oh no here we go again" But before you decide to leave the church, or reach your conclusions about how the catholic church is one giant mafia holding stock in Immobiliare. Hear me out, give me a chance to explain, to clarify, to bring you the truth that mainstream media is trying to hide. It is my hope that through my writing and research that I can help clarify and clear up misunderstandings about these recent news developments. Since the breath and scope of these allegations can be confounding. I will be writing multiple installments chronicling the different issues surrounding these allegations. This installment will chronicle the sex abuse scandal of 02', pariticularily the official policy implemented by the CDF in 1962 titled, Crimen sollictationis It is my firm belief that this recent media blitz is a deliberate attempt to smear pope Benedict, and to cast a negative light on his stellar record as cardinal and now as pope.
It is important to also note that I am in no way defending the actions of the accused. I believe firmly that those accused should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. I am only trying to record the facts as accurately as possible since unfortunately we live in a time where the media as a whole is not reliable. Remember that context is the key to unlocking the truth of these issues.
In 2002, the United States woke up to the horror of sex abuse allegations at the hands of Catholic Priests. It seemed like almost every day there was some other priest, some other bishop involved in abusing some victims or even worse covering up a for a priest. The country as a whole felt betrayed, shocked, and outraged. How can servants of Christ do such abominable things? Worse off how could the church cover up these cases, even moving the abused priests to different dioceses? In short it was a terrible time in the history of the Catholic Church in America. A period that I would argue that we as catholics still have not totally recovered from.
In 1962 the Congregation for the doctrine of faith issued a policy on how to report alleged sex abuse cases. This policy was called Crimen sollictationis Under this policy absolute secrecy was promised to the victim and priest if an allegation was brought up. The victim in this policy had up to one month to report the incident to the bishop. On the surface this seems like a perfect recipe for covering up the problem, but if one looks beyond the obvious one can see that this policy actually was designed to help the victims. Think about it for a second, remember that context is key here, imagine you have been abused and you are part of a parish, would you want your allegations to be made public? Now also imagine if you were a priest would you want your name to be dragged in the mud if the allegations were proved false? This type of dual protection is not foreign to many of our laws, for example our whistle blower laws offer similar types of protections to the victims. This type of protection often times is the incentive needed to encourage victims to speak up.
This policy also divided the jurisdictional responsibilities in the following two ways. If there was an actual sex abuse case reported than the CDF (Congregation for the doctrine of Faith) would take care of it, but for other types of criminal misbehavior the jurisdiction would fall under the presiding bishop of the diocese. Unfortunately though, many bishops did not follow this procedure choosing instead to cover up or to move the priests to a different parish. This behavior would have disastrous consequences in the following decades.
In 2001 then Cardinal Ratzinger, decided because of the gross in inadequacies of the local bishops in handling the cases that the CDC instead would take over all of the reported cases. Fr. Brundage speaks about this sudden change of procedure
"Prosecution of cases of sexual abuse after the CDF assumed control of them in 2001 "were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger."
Despite this welcome change of policy it was too late to stop the momentum of 2002 allegations. It is unfortunate that Ratzinger did not implement this policy earlier. But you must remember that according to the statutes of Crimen sollictationis that the jurisdiction lied with the individual bishops of each diocese. The damage was already done, once the cat got out of the bag, it was too late.
In my next installment I will speak about the particulars of the 2004 John Jay Report
Comments
Post a Comment